Allowed

Cannanore Roller Flour Mills Pvt.Ltd. v. the Kerala Financial Corporation & Ors.

Kerala HC25 Mar 2010WP(C)/4446/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to lift attachment and release title deeds regarding loan security properties, subject to the outcome of an admitted SLP before the Supreme Court. The issue of collection charges was left open.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent directed to lift attachment; respondents directed to release title deeds within two weeks; issue of collection charges left open.

Cannanore Roller Flour Mills Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Kerala… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 4446 of 2010(E)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

CANNANORE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, 28/43/F, KRISHNA BUILDING, KUDILTHODE JUNCTION, THONDAYAD BYEPASS, CALICUT-673 017.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KANNUR.

¶15

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY), THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,KANNUR.

¶16

R1 AND R2 BY ADV. MR. R.S. KALKURA, SC, KFC. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 4446 OF 2010

¶20

......................................................................... Dated this the 25^th March, 2010

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶23

“i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to lift the attachment effected over the properties given as security for the loan (Loan Account No.020232051 of KFC , Kannur Branch) availed by the petitioner from the 1^st respondent Corporation.

¶24

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to forthwith release the title deeds of the properties given as security for the loan (Loan Account No.020232051 of KFC, Kannur Branch) availed by the petitioner from the first respondent Corporation; and

¶25

iii) To grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case.”

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 4446 OF 2010

¶28

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

¶29

first respondent Kerala Financial Corporation and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent.

¶30

It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader, with reference to the statement filed, that steps have already been taken from the part of the respondents to challenge Ext.P4 judgment by filing SLP . It is also stated that the SLP filed against the verdict passed by the Division Bench, (reported in 2009 (4) KLT 328) has already been admitted, also granting interim stay therein (SLP.2428/10). But this Court found that the intention of the respondents to file SLP against Ext.P4 judgment with a petition to condone the delay, as stated in paragraph 4 of the statement, is not a sufficient ground to decline the relief prayed for, especially since the matter has become final, as on date, by virtue of Ext.P4 judgment and the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit, unless and until it is modified or reversed in any manner by the Apex Court, as and when the same is subjected to challenge.

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 4446 OF 2010

¶33

In the above circumstances, the third respondent is directed to lift the attachment over the property given as security for the loan amount availed by the petitioner from the first respondent Corporation and the respondents are directed to release the title deeds of the property in question, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that the rights and liberties of the parties concerned will be subject to the outcome of the SLP stated as being filed before the Apex Court. The issue regarding the liability to pay collection charges is left open.

¶34

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶35

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶36

Cannanore Roller Flour Mills Pvt.Ltd. v. the Kerala Financial Corporation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cannanore Roller Flour Mills Pvt.Ltd. v. the Kerala Financial Corporation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uco Bank, Thrissur Vs a.v.Moidunni

The Kadannamanna Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer and Others

Regency Club Vs R.D.O., Thrissur

Mohamedkunhi Vs the Canara Bank

B.Suriakumar Vs the General Manager and Others

Shabeer Ali Vs the Manager,State Bank of India